John Bolton sees Obama making lemonade out of lemons, but he'd rather see Israel bomb the lemonade stand to the ground. (Photo Credit: CC BY-SA/Torsten/Wikipedia)

Controversial former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claims that Israel has a three-day window in which to bomb Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant before it becomes fully functional, reports Agence France-Presse. Once nuclear fuel is loaded into the plant’s core, any attacks would spread radiation and harm Iranian civilians. Conventional wisdom suggests that Israel will not strike Bushehr, but Bolton and those of similar mindset appear to be goading Israel toward war. Despite sanctions by the United States and the European Union, Iran’s quest for nuclear power has continued.

John Bolton says Bushehr is a major step toward nuclear weapons

John Bolton, always known for his aggressive, irascible style, doesn’t mince words regarding Bushehr. He sees it as a potential weapons factory the likes of which men such as Saddam Hussein only dreamed of, according to AFP. Yet such has been the ongoing argument between Iran and the United Nations: Is the Middle Eastern nation prepping a nuclear weapons program, or is it simply attempting to upgrade its power grid through nuclear means? Bolton, now a senior fellow at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute, has been fixated for years on potential nuclear weapons programs in nations like North Korea and Iran. Numerous media sources like CBS News have accused him of having a “one-track mind” on the matter, and Bolton has been accused in the past by the liberal media of spinning intelligence to confirm his pronouncements, even when sufficient evidence was not present.

Bolton would bomb the lemonade stand

A recent New York Times op-ed by Bolton spoke of his disenchantment with the Obama administration’s stance on Iran:

“There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being ‘on the table.’… It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policymakers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.”

Bombing Bushehr would mean war, says Foreign Policy magazine

The United States has had a complex relationship with the Jewish state. World War II was a major turning point, and the U.S. warmed even more to the cause of Israel in the days following Israel’s victory in 1967′s Six Day War. Thus, it is reasonable to say that while the nations do not have specific treaties in place, the United States and Israel are de-facto allies. Thus, a war between Iran and Israel would conceivably involve the U.S., even though the U.S. itself would not have a “just or strategically sound cause for initiating war,” writes Foreign Policy magazine. This is perhaps why John Bolton would love to see Israel do the job on its own. Even a noted war hawk like Bolton knows when it’s time to hold ‘em, as the United States’ military resources are already stretched too thin on multiple fronts. But if Israel bombs the lemonade stand, can the U.S. realistically hope to remain unstained by the citrus firestorm?

Sources:

Foreign Policy magazine

History News Network

Wall Street Journal

Wikipedia

Yahoo! News/AFP

What John Bolton has said about Iran and Israel in the past

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad scoffs at U.S. economic sanctions. (Photo: Flickr)

When it comes to U.S. sanctions on nuclear weapons, human rights violations or anything else, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has heard it all before. According to Iranian online news website PressTV, Ahmadinejad is prepared to simply “shrug off” any American threats of economic penalty. This time around, it’s over the claim that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. This is something Ahmadinejad denies vehemently, saying that the U.S. has “not a shred of evidence.” Regarding sanctions, Ahmadinejad essentially has said to the rest of the world “bring them on,” that Iran is “well-prepared.” That doesn’t mean the country has same day cash loans at the ready, however, as Islam prohibits interest rates in lending.

Ahmadinejad says 30 years of sanctions make the latest no problem

“Iran is not worried about U.S. sanctions; it is used to 30 years of sanctions,” Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Charlie Rose that broadcast May 3. ”Sanctions are meaningless in the world of free trade,” he added. In the mind of Ahmadinejad, this action is another attempt by the U.S. government to make the Iranian nuclear program a political hot-button issue for its own gain. As part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran sees that it has the right to use nuclear technology in the service of civilians.

Ahmadinejad says he does not want the bomb

PressTV – perhaps not the most unbiased source for accurately portraying truth behind the Iranian government’s public face, as Iran is not known to be a country that values freedom of the press – refers extensively to Ahmadinejad’s anti-nuke stance. He claims he is opposed and does not want to make such weapons, but he also says that he would not be afraid to announce his invent if he did in fact decide to construct nuclear weaponry. As a chaser, Ahmadinejad follows up the bravado with more safe speech about how “Nuclear weapons are the gravest danger that threatens our world. Iran has solutions for nuclear disarmament, preventing the Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and building a peaceful world,” according to PressTV. That’s pretty big talk from a president who may not have actually won his country’s most recent election.

Ahmadinejad has demanded a timetable

Whether that timetable will be for eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide or for the next moment at which he will step forward and rattle some UN and U.S. cages remains to be seen. The Ahmadinejad presentation at the 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before the UN set out numerous details about how to strengthen regulations that would lead toward disarmament, but one wonders if Iran will be willing to walk the walk.

(Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/opendemocracy/ / CC BY-SA 2.0)

Related Video:

The Obama nuclear policy revisions don't completely mean no nukes. From Wikimedia Commons

President Obama has conducted a Nuclear Posture Review and updated the nation’s policy on nuclear weapons, which has led to some criticism of the Obama nuclear policy.  Overall, the policy changes little, though components of it have angered some of the more hawkish types among Congressional Republicans. If the government were to put any fast cash into any more nuclear supplies, it would be for reactors, not for any more nukes.

Stark raving MAD

According to the article in TIME, the updated Obama nuclear weapons policy changes nothing regarding the default status between Russia and the U.S.  Since the dawn of the Cold War, what kept a nuclear exchange from taking place between the two largest nuclear powers was something called “Mutually Assured Destruction,” wherein the nuclear deterrence held by either country would be deployed in the event of the other attacking with theirs.

Essentially, this means that neither side will benefit from a nuclear attack because both would be damaged far beyond the extent a few payday loans can cover in the event that a nuclear exchange would take place.

Non-aggression, with exceptions

Part of the updated nuclear weapons policy is that President Obama has pledged to never initiate a nuclear attack, except against states that do not participate in the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty. He also pledges he will never use nuclear weapons against states that aren’t known to be developing nuclear weapons. Essentially, it’s equally a carrot — for states to not develop them — and a stick for — those that would. It insinuates we may nuke rogue states that are developing nuclear weapons.  More or less, it says we won’t be nuclear aggressors, but with broad room for exceptions.

New nukes nixed

The President has also made it clear we will not build any NEW nuclear weapons.  The hawkish among Senate Republicans have balked at this idea, and our nuclear arsenal is aging. But then again, the weapons grade isotope of plutonium, Pu-239, has a half life (the amount of time an element stays in one form, before it decays) of more than 24,000 years, so we’re good for the time being.  The half lives of the other two weapons grade radioactive isotopes, Uranium 233 and Uranium 235, are 160,000 years and 703,800,000 years, respectively. However, what constitutes “new” isn’t defined.

Terrorists will pay, and me bomb es su bomb

The Obama nuclear update on our policy also includes no change to existing doctrine that states harboring or enabling terrorists will not be spared the nuclear rod in the event of an attack.  Also, any country that is currently host to any of our stockpiled weapons (such as Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy) can make use of such weapons with our approval in case they seriously need to.

And Iran so far away

From an article from Reuters, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is apparently none too pleased. He said that Obama is “inexperienced and an amateur politician.” He further added that “American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings their hands go to their guns.”  The revised Obama nuclear policy, in reality, changes little.

Si vis pacem para bellum. If you wish for peace, prepare for war. (Photo: commons.wikimedia.org)

That’s the translation of that Latin phrase. I’m not talking about obtaining pre-emptive payday advances to prepare your budget for war. I’m talking about being prepared to live by the sword.

This Roman saying may prove to be what Israel is preparing for against Iran. At the G-8 summit this past July, Iran was given a September deadline to begin negotiating the stand down of its nuclear program. Just last week, Iran officially responded with a resounding “no.” They produced a document that criticizes other nations’ “ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations” and discusses democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism and respecting other nations. Shutting down the nuclear program is off the table, according to Ahmadinejad and Ali Khameni.

Is Obama doing enough to avert war?

That’s the question a recent Wall Street Journal editorial asks. As a sovereign nation, Israel appears ready to protect their interests; they appear poised to live by the motto “si vis pacem para bellum” by the end of 2009 if peaceful negotiations are unsuccessful. Yet the writer questions whether the Obama administration is taking a strong enough stance against Iran’s nuclear proliferation.

If you were Israel, what would you think of this?

1. President Obama has decided to drop Iran from the agenda at an upcoming U.N. Security Council he’s slated to chair.
2. U.S. Defense Secretary Gates has spoken out against the possibility of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
3. Russia has said they won’t support sanctions against Iran anymore.

They have the right to defend themselves

Considering Ahmadinejad’s well-publicized rhetoric about “wiping Israel off the map,” it’s understandable that Israel might feel that they need to take matters into their own hands. They are a mighty military power, so they may well have the capability to execute a successful “pre-emptive defensive strike.” Israel hasn’t wanted to jump into such an action; in fact, they’ve hoped that their ally the United States would be the first to jump in.

But the Obama administration has consistently indicated that their interest is in diplomatic solutions. Vice President Biden’s comments (see video below) indicate that the United States would not stop Israel from protecting itself, but that it would also “defend its own interests.” If full-scale war erupts between Israel and Iran, it doesn’t require much of a leap to see Iran retaliating against American targets in the Middle East. Furthermore, America’s oil interests in the region are sadly still tremendous in scope. Thus, America protecting its own interests could translate to a si vis pacem para bellum of its own.

Israel has been very public about their fears

This creates a very different climate than what existed before they carried out secret strikes against an Iranian nuclear reactor in 1981 and against one in Syria in 2007. Now, Israel is making very public practice maneuvers and crying loud about the danger Iran poses. That danger may indeed be quite real (in light of the nation’s Anti-Semitism and the scarred history of violence in the region), yet Obama simply won’t bite.

Will diplomacy work? Will the U.S. be able to talk Israel down from a potential pre-emptive defensive strike? Or does the U.S. want Israel to be their personal cleaner, eliminating a problem for them? The WSJ editorialist throws all of these ideas about. He even suggests the U.S. “isn’t really paying attention,” but I don’t see how that’s possible.

Israel is paying close attention

A report by the Bipartisan Policy Center indicates that by 2010, Iran will “be able to produce a weapon’s worth of highly enriched uranium… in less than two months.” Iran is also expecting anti-aircraft weapons from Russia in the near future, which could speed up Israel’s timetable to react. Significantly, President Obama has left Iran policy up to Prime Minister Netanyahu. They are in the driver’s seat, so to speak.

America wants to part of a Middle East arms race

[apply_button float="right"]

Thus, a disabling strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities would avert that disaster. However, reciprocity would present other challenges that would lead to Americans losing their lives. As George C. Scott exclaims in “Dr. Strangelove,” “I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed.” Is that an acceptable political strategy? It seems that no matter what the United States does, we will be involved in this mess. As callous as it may sound, it may come down to what path minimizes the damage. Such is the inescapable path America set itself on, dating all the way back to the “big stick” policies of President Teddy Roosevelt. Only now, the stakes are much higher and the weapons are unimaginably more destructive. No payday advances, no acceptable losses or anything else. Pain will be the everlasting legacy.

Related Video: